Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong ---
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:01:09 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <v3ifhm$3f51j$14@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org> <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org> <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org> <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org> <v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org> <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>
 <MPG.40c4fbcb474992459896fd@reader.eternal-september.org>
 <v3f9ha$2qh0t$1@dont-email.me> <v3ffpc$2n53n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fgfb$2riae$2@dont-email.me> <v3fh1a$2n53o$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fhkr$2rsbs$2@dont-email.me> <v3fig4$2n53n$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fj8h$2rsbs$6@dont-email.me> <v3g0bg$2n53n$18@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g0n2$2v3lp$2@dont-email.me> <v3g329$2n53n$21@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g3np$2vk55$1@dont-email.me> <v3g7e9$2n53n$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g7r8$30c96$1@dont-email.me> <v3heeh$2psm0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3i1a5$3cpu7$7@dont-email.me> <v3icta$3f51j$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3ie4d$3f571$4@dont-email.me> <v3if0c$3f51j$9@dont-email.me>
 <v3ifb5$3f571$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:01:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7b2dfb52a2545f32ded9b03629a80d37";
	logging-data="3642419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184Iv4QqtPEySQofAN5Vn+J"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EbvE+B9a9wxDvo/n1Vj7VfFRORQ=
In-Reply-To: <v3ifb5$3f571$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5239

Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:57 schreef olcott:
> On 6/2/2024 1:51 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:37 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/2/2024 1:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/2/2024 4:36 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:37:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of 
>>>>>>>>> HH/DD
>>>>>>>>> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own
>>>>>>>>> simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD 
>>>>>>>>> by HH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But since the simulation was aborted,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The above never mentions anything about any simulation being 
>>>>>>> aborted*
>>>>>> Not simulating an infinite number of steps of infinite recursion is
>>>>>> incorrect. You always forget this requirement: the simulation must be
>>>>>> complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> When every possible simulation where DD is correctly simulated by HH
>>>>> never reaches past its own simulated line 03 then we know for sure 
>>>>> that
>>>>> No DD correctly simulated by HH ever halts.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly:
>>>>
>>>> When every possible simulation where HH is correctly simulated by 
>>>> itself
>>>> never reaches its own return then we know for sure that no HH 
>>>> correctly simulated by HH ever halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I am not going to keep repeating myself, I will simply give up on you*
>>>
>>> HH(DD,DD) correctly detects that DD correctly simulated by HH cannot
>>> possibly halt because HH keeps calling HH(DD,DD) in recursive
>>> simulation.
>>
>> Similarly HH(DD,DD) correctly detects that HH correctly simulated by 
>> HH cannot possibly halt, because HH keeps calling HH(DD,DD) in recursive
>> simulation.
>>
> 
> HH(DD,DD) correctly simulates DD(DD) that calls HH(DD,DD) in recursive
> simulation proving that the directly executed HH(DD,DD) can correctly
> reject its input as non-halting.
> 
> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct
> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
> 
> <Professor Sipser agreed>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> unless aborted then
> 
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
> non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </Professor Sipser agreed>
> 
> The above criteria provides the basis for a correct solution to the 
> halting problem.
> 

If so, it proves that HH correctly reports that HH does not halt.